Pan said:
You're absolutely correct Pan. Once again an example of KBK talking pseudo-tech talk but completely missing the boat on very basic principles of physics and engineering that thousands of people with an IQ of only 100 can understand... let alone someone with KBK's self proclaimed IQ of 200 or so.
Another possibility is that he meant that the cone keeps oscillating for a long time (which is how I understood it). Maybe I'm wrong. But is that even possible?
Also, a volume of enclosed air (at room temperature and pressure) is basically a perfect spring, as it follows the ideal gas laws. I don't see how it's non-linear.
Also, a volume of enclosed air (at room temperature and pressure) is basically a perfect spring, as it follows the ideal gas laws. I don't see how it's non-linear.
"Also, a volume of enclosed air (at room temperature and pressure) is basically a perfect spring, as it follows the ideal gas laws. I don't see how it's non-linear."
Absolutely not. Air has non symmetric behaviour at the compression and rarefaction phase. Remember we are not talking static properties here when we deal with music which is periodic movement of air.
The air adds 2nd order (mainly) harmonics to the soundwave on it´s way from whatever source that makes the sound and this also happens in acoustic suspension designs and to a lesser degree "infinite baffle" designs.
This very fact can be one explanation why some argue that even order harmonic distortion sounds more natural and pleasing than odd order. Nelson Pass used this as an argument when launching the Aleph series of power amps.
I can´t really understand why KBK act as he does. He bring up "off topic" stuff and when someone take up that line it ****es him off..hmm. Guess it´s just to painfull to get the pants pulled down in public... being a pro and all...
/Peter
Absolutely not. Air has non symmetric behaviour at the compression and rarefaction phase. Remember we are not talking static properties here when we deal with music which is periodic movement of air.
The air adds 2nd order (mainly) harmonics to the soundwave on it´s way from whatever source that makes the sound and this also happens in acoustic suspension designs and to a lesser degree "infinite baffle" designs.
This very fact can be one explanation why some argue that even order harmonic distortion sounds more natural and pleasing than odd order. Nelson Pass used this as an argument when launching the Aleph series of power amps.
I can´t really understand why KBK act as he does. He bring up "off topic" stuff and when someone take up that line it ****es him off..hmm. Guess it´s just to painfull to get the pants pulled down in public... being a pro and all...
/Peter
Just to make sure that message came through...5th element said:
KBK said:
Here's a post about the SS7000: don't use it in a 2-way: it doesn't perform very well if crossed over lowish.
The MDT-33 is a superb choice for an MTM and can be crossed very low. So is the SS9700 crossed at 2KHz or higher (which I prefer over the 9900). Hiquphon is also considered a very good tweeter and for its size (3/4") it handles lowish XO (4th order acoustic @ 2200Hz and up) very well, unlike the overly expensive ringrad. I would also have a look at Accuton. I bought a pair of C23's not too long ago (it's seems like it's going to be a long wait untill the new models are released) and I'm extremely pleased with it. Can also be crossed very low.
What kind of filtering do you have in mind? If low order i very important to you, I would go for the Morel or the Accuton. SS9500 is also a good option for low order slopes (a little better than 9700 in this regard), but the other two sound more accurate, in particular the Accuton. All of them can handle loads of power... I have used all three tweeters, as well as the Hiquphon. The other, I have auditioned in one or two designs.
Thank you. The C12 is also a very fine tweeter. I'm not sure wether there is much difference in treble quality between the C12 and the C23 even if some graphs/plots lokk a little better. I've heard a few ppl say the C12 is better, but haven't personally A-B'd them, only heard them seperate of eachother. The C23 however is much more flexible and very suitable for 2-way for instance. TTBOMK the C13 isn't out yet.sbolin said:
OK. thanks for the info on the Accuton, and the like. I definitiely like what I hear in the Morel. Time to increase the size of the 'reject' tweeter pile again! 
I'll try out some of the tweeters you mention.
What do you guys think about the idea of,hmm..possibly good old conventional LCR filtering/XO'ing of speaker systems (specifically at the high end) becoming a thing of the past? With all thse interesting Digital crossover devices starting to appear, with 192khz I/O (AD/DA)? For example, the DEQX? I'm thinking of grabbing one, and rebuilding it. see what it can really do....
Pan: As for such comments (by people responding to a post of mine), they are usually done with such vitrol, I don't realy have a chance to make a comment furthur ie, respond), without that being pursued as some sort 'point of attack'. Personally, I think it might be nice to speak to people or rather more correctly, converse with them, as opposed to attack. Not everyone has the same mode or style of expression. I tend to speak as the 'muse' affects me, ie, stream of conciousness expressed as conversation. It isn't always right..but when it is.... I accept your mode of expression, please consider that of others?
As for me getting my pants pulled down in public, I've never minded that. But when you are in a business with other people in it, suddenly the marrige prevents you from you being your full self.
As for boxes and seal quality, just about anything we like to call a box... leaks. Any box I've dealt with, that is supposedly sealed in nature, as far less of a seal quality that I'd call 'optimal'. As for furthur explainations, etc.. I was honoured with about 4 phone calls about my presence on this site, and my posts in general.
Enough said.......
I'll try out some of the tweeters you mention.What do you guys think about the idea of,hmm..possibly good old conventional LCR filtering/XO'ing of speaker systems (specifically at the high end) becoming a thing of the past? With all thse interesting Digital crossover devices starting to appear, with 192khz I/O (AD/DA)? For example, the DEQX? I'm thinking of grabbing one, and rebuilding it. see what it can really do....
Pan: As for such comments (by people responding to a post of mine), they are usually done with such vitrol, I don't realy have a chance to make a comment furthur ie, respond), without that being pursued as some sort 'point of attack'. Personally, I think it might be nice to speak to people or rather more correctly, converse with them, as opposed to attack. Not everyone has the same mode or style of expression. I tend to speak as the 'muse' affects me, ie, stream of conciousness expressed as conversation. It isn't always right..but when it is.... I accept your mode of expression, please consider that of others?
As for me getting my pants pulled down in public, I've never minded that. But when you are in a business with other people in it, suddenly the marrige prevents you from you being your full self.
As for boxes and seal quality, just about anything we like to call a box... leaks. Any box I've dealt with, that is supposedly sealed in nature, as far less of a seal quality that I'd call 'optimal'. As for furthur explainations, etc.. I was honoured with about 4 phone calls about my presence on this site, and my posts in general.
Enough said.......
Hans L
I was a little confused with your post, do you perfer the mdt-33 over the 9500 or the 9700.
From the the gist of your post, I believe your preference is:
1. C23
2. MDT-33
3. 9500
and 9700 is equal to the mdt-33 as long as it is crossed above 2000 hz with a 24db LR.
Could you also tell me which ones you owned and which ones you auditioned? it wasn't clear for me in that post.
Thanks for your help.
mike
I was a little confused with your post, do you perfer the mdt-33 over the 9500 or the 9700.
From the the gist of your post, I believe your preference is:
1. C23
2. MDT-33
3. 9500
and 9700 is equal to the mdt-33 as long as it is crossed above 2000 hz with a 24db LR.
Could you also tell me which ones you owned and which ones you auditioned? it wasn't clear for me in that post.
Thanks for your help.
mike
Yes, that's how I would rank them. I would also probably put the Hiquphpon with the C23/MDT-33 above 3KHz or so. I don't own the 9700. Apart from the Morel and the Hiq, I have also auditioned all the listed tweeters (and the SS ring) in one or two other designs.mbutzkies said:
Listen to them yourself before you buy one of these. They're too expensive to rely solely on other ppl 's opinion. On the other hand, all these tweeters are considered very good by many... so maybe I should end this post with 'you can't go wrong buying one of these'...
Pants down in public again.
IT'S ALIVE!!!
Ok. marginally so.
I'm looking at buying about 16 or so of the renaudio MST 335 (33Se) tweets to do a small test run of production. We will start with the KISS end of things. Simple two way. Outboard crossovers, of course, is there any other way to do it?
MDT33se and a 8545 in a sealed box. Should work ok. Lotsa headroom to do some fine tuning on the tweeter. An intelligently created/idealized crossover should work wonders for intergration. Us DIY'ers don't think any of this **** is worth even shaking a **** at, but the other 99.999% of the public don't mind paying the retail markup for what is seen as a great sounding product. The realities of marketing and retail. Such is life. We all have to put bread on the table, and the odd glass of decent wine.
This is why I like running stuff like this by overly picky anal guys on forums like this. Sometimes we are even, heavens forbid..antagonistic!
If it can take that sort of heat, fire and warfare, walking the 'John Q Public' beat is a joke after that. Trial by fire kinda thing.
What do I mean in that bit of rambling? If it can survive being beaten to death by the DIY crowd, it should be fine for the 'real world'.
why am I even bothering posting? well I went looking for info on the RenAudio 33se...and only found my own contributions! Staring at my own navel again. jeez!
I've been using digital crossovers as of recent ...and dang, its difficult to go back to passive after that.
IT'S ALIVE!!!
Ok. marginally so.
I'm looking at buying about 16 or so of the renaudio MST 335 (33Se) tweets to do a small test run of production. We will start with the KISS end of things.
Simple two way. Outboard crossovers, of course, is there any other way to do it?MDT33se and a 8545 in a sealed box. Should work ok. Lotsa headroom to do some fine tuning on the tweeter. An intelligently created/idealized crossover should work wonders for intergration. Us DIY'ers don't think any of this **** is worth even shaking a **** at, but the other 99.999% of the public don't mind paying the retail markup for what is seen as a great sounding product. The realities of marketing and retail. Such is life. We all have to put bread on the table, and the odd glass of decent wine.
This is why I like running stuff like this by overly picky anal guys on forums like this. Sometimes we are even, heavens forbid..antagonistic!
If it can take that sort of heat, fire and warfare, walking the 'John Q Public' beat is a joke after that. Trial by fire kinda thing.
What do I mean in that bit of rambling? If it can survive being beaten to death by the DIY crowd, it should be fine for the 'real world'.
why am I even bothering posting? well I went looking for info on the RenAudio 33se...and only found my own contributions! Staring at my own navel again. jeez!
I've been using digital crossovers as of recent ...and dang, its difficult to go back to passive after that.
deqx
mmm...
the "immediacy" for lack of a better word is nice... But the deqx does not sound as good (in standard config.) a nice analog active XO sounds better - more immediate... less veiled perhaps... Only compared standard deqx2496 and analog active XO based on AD797's, so wouldn't know about others or modded ones... Am GUESSING that attention to (if possible) DAC and Opamps will improve DEQX significantly.
OTOH the DEQX is veddy nice to sort out X-O's... slopes etc...
Once you know what you want the speaker to sound like, and with what slopes etc... you get to figure out how to do it analog!
Cheers!
mmm...
the "immediacy" for lack of a better word is nice... But the deqx does not sound as good (in standard config.) a nice analog active XO sounds better - more immediate... less veiled perhaps... Only compared standard deqx2496 and analog active XO based on AD797's, so wouldn't know about others or modded ones... Am GUESSING that attention to (if possible) DAC and Opamps will improve DEQX significantly.
OTOH the DEQX is veddy nice to sort out X-O's... slopes etc...
Once you know what you want the speaker to sound like, and with what slopes etc... you get to figure out how to do it analog!
Cheers!
Re: Pants down in public again.
Now that IS a change of tune.
Earlier last year you preached to me about the superiority of passive networks when I happened to mention that I used digital ones based around studio mastering equipment.
Can't find the posts but I do have a good memory.
KBK said:
Now that IS a change of tune.
Earlier last year you preached to me about the superiority of passive networks when I happened to mention that I used digital ones based around studio mastering equipment.
Can't find the posts but I do have a good memory.
Re: Re: Pants down in public again.
many people are preaching the superiority of X or Y without any subjective or scientific evidences, what is good with active crossover is that the advantages are so big and hearable that when you heard one you can't really go back on the passive side
ShinOBIWAN said:
many people are preaching the superiority of X or Y without any subjective or scientific evidences, what is good with active crossover is that the advantages are so big and hearable that when you heard one you can't really go back on the passive side
Re: Re: Re: Pants down in public again.
Well I've had both passive as well as digital and analogue active crossovers in my system - in the same room, with the same speakers/equipment. So subjectively I've tried them out.
And my conclusion is I'd agree entirely with your comment about active vs. passive when dealing with digital sources. It tends to lose some appeal to folks with analogue sources.
My point is that when someone states something with much conviction such as passive is superior to active and then does a U turn in the space of months after claiming to have heard the best of each is something of a mystery to me.
Nemophyle said:
Well I've had both passive as well as digital and analogue active crossovers in my system - in the same room, with the same speakers/equipment. So subjectively I've tried them out.
And my conclusion is I'd agree entirely with your comment about active vs. passive when dealing with digital sources. It tends to lose some appeal to folks with analogue sources.
My point is that when someone states something with much conviction such as passive is superior to active and then does a U turn in the space of months after claiming to have heard the best of each is something of a mystery to me.
Re: Re: Pants down in public again.
Ah, I was just playing the other side of the table. Start off barking hard, etc.
You remember cuz it stung!
I remember as well, vaugely. Yep. Ok Studio use. B&W, etc. It's a coming back. Or the B&W part comes from the abbey road article I read near the same time. Must be the pretzels.
My complaint is the same as it was then. NOT ENOUGH TEMPORAL RESOLUTION.
The DEQX, I've had a recent email conver wtih Carrie about some possible changes. THEN I'll buy one and have a go at it. Basically it's a 96khz sampling minimum for me, I and O. Otherwise, I won't touch it. The mathematical transforms being very radical to the signal.. is my technicaly incompetent attempt at stating what I hear...in my humble opinion..this is an unrecognized issue.
And the reverse, in many ways to an analog crossover. Loss of detail in the minutae..where it is CRITICAL that there be zero harm for it to sound 'right' to the human hearing mechanism.
We are so used to fighting aurally/mentally/'intelligence'
wise with the acoustically presented signal in it's S/N ratio issues..that we forget completely what it is like to simply bask in the glory of a signal that is presented with a far lower S/N ratio. Seriously. We learn to listen for the wrong things. and the majority of audiophiles listen for the wrong things.
When presented with a speaker that does not have those issues, they sometimes cannot hear how well it is doing! They have to be trained, all over again! It's really wierd...I had this happen with one of, if not Canada's premier audio dealer in a demo. Another guy, been selling for 25 years and he absolutely loves great and true sounding gear....he took -three days- to figure it out! Wow. It's a freaky thing...... Once they get it, though..they can never go back. Ahh..the perfect converts. A'goner for life. hehehee
I do understand there are tremendous benefits to going digital but don't count out what an analog/passive crossover can do right.
I also principally do MTM's as I prefer the sound. Always have, always will. And a low slope, properly done analog crossover on a MTM is a freaking nightmare to get right. Oh lordy, I'm practically ready to be ill just thinking about trying to do one to my own and my biz partner's 'over the top' anal standards. Fock me.
The digital crossovers, even that done with the DCX2496, are like..a joke in copmparison - to execute right.
But the absolutely frightening loss of fine detail..well.... it's difficult to take.
I haven't heard an analog crossover of my own design for nearly a year now, and I have to go back at it again, in a bit.
Or we might start by going completely digital, right from day one. But them DEQX units are darned expensive........
Ah, we'll go passive, with the ability for customers to upgrade. They can certainly do it themselves..but hey, then they wouldn't get MY version of a DEQX.
ShinOBIWAN said:
Ah, I was just playing the other side of the table. Start off barking hard, etc.
You remember cuz it stung!
I remember as well, vaugely. Yep. Ok Studio use. B&W, etc. It's a coming back. Or the B&W part comes from the abbey road article I read near the same time. Must be the pretzels.
My complaint is the same as it was then. NOT ENOUGH TEMPORAL RESOLUTION.
The DEQX, I've had a recent email conver wtih Carrie about some possible changes. THEN I'll buy one and have a go at it. Basically it's a 96khz sampling minimum for me, I and O. Otherwise, I won't touch it. The mathematical transforms being very radical to the signal.. is my technicaly incompetent attempt at stating what I hear...in my humble opinion..this is an unrecognized issue.
And the reverse, in many ways to an analog crossover. Loss of detail in the minutae..where it is CRITICAL that there be zero harm for it to sound 'right' to the human hearing mechanism.
We are so used to fighting aurally/mentally/'intelligence'
wise with the acoustically presented signal in it's S/N ratio issues..that we forget completely what it is like to simply bask in the glory of a signal that is presented with a far lower S/N ratio. Seriously. We learn to listen for the wrong things. and the majority of audiophiles listen for the wrong things.
When presented with a speaker that does not have those issues, they sometimes cannot hear how well it is doing! They have to be trained, all over again! It's really wierd...I had this happen with one of, if not Canada's premier audio dealer in a demo. Another guy, been selling for 25 years and he absolutely loves great and true sounding gear....he took -three days- to figure it out! Wow. It's a freaky thing...... Once they get it, though..they can never go back. Ahh..the perfect converts. A'goner for life. hehehee
I do understand there are tremendous benefits to going digital but don't count out what an analog/passive crossover can do right.
I also principally do MTM's as I prefer the sound. Always have, always will. And a low slope, properly done analog crossover on a MTM is a freaking nightmare to get right. Oh lordy, I'm practically ready to be ill just thinking about trying to do one to my own and my biz partner's 'over the top' anal standards. Fock me.
The digital crossovers, even that done with the DCX2496, are like..a joke in copmparison - to execute right.
But the absolutely frightening loss of fine detail..well.... it's difficult to take.
I haven't heard an analog crossover of my own design for nearly a year now, and I have to go back at it again, in a bit.
Or we might start by going completely digital, right from day one. But them DEQX units are darned expensive........
Ah, we'll go passive, with the ability for customers to upgrade. They can certainly do it themselves..but hey, then they wouldn't get MY version of a DEQX.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.